Amazon adverts under fire for being misleading
First published by Author on June 08, 2018 in the following categories: Advertising Pricing and tagged with advertising | pricing
Amazon adverts have come under fire for being ‘misleading’ in relation to advertised price savings for four electronic products. Each advert reportedly received at least one complaint, and a subsequent investigation by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) reportedly upheld the complaints.
The Amazon adverts in question were for savings of £220 that could be achieved for an LG Smart TV; £193 on a ViewSonic monitor; £300 on an MSI laptop; and £185 on a Philips electronic toothbrush.
Despite protestation from Amazon, the ASA found that there was a lack of evidence to support the advertised savings.
It’s understood that Amazon has since admitted that the savings for the LG Smart TV were calculated incorrectly, but they have stood by the reported savings for the other products. They argued that the Amazon adverts over RRPs were similar to prices displayed on other retail websites or by other sellers on Amazon.
However, their argument was rejected by the ASA who checked the prices of products against other retailers and against previous prices, and they found that the monitor, for example, had been sold at a higher price for nine days, then a lower price for 14 days, and then a higher price for two days, and then back to a lower price for 16 days. The ASA said that such price fluctuations for the Amazon adverts did not evidence that Amazon sold the products for a usually higher price.
It’s understood that similar inconsistencies were also found with the other products at the centre of the Amazon adverts in question. This is not the first time Amazon has come under fire over advertising, with consumer advice organisation Which? urging shoppers to take care when looking at the prices for goods on Amazon.
In a statement from the ASA:
“We told Amazon to ensure that future references to RRPs reflected the price at which the products concerned were generally sold, and to ensure that they held adequate evidence to substantiate their savings claims.”